Tendring Topics……..on line
A Family Wedding
The Bride and Groom
Monday 8th July saw a
happy and memorable event in my family when my elder son Peter and Arlene
Esdaile were married at Colchester Registrar’s Office. I have known Arlene for over a decade and she already knew knew how pleased I would be to welcome her as a daughter-in-law and
member of the family. Both bride and
groom live in London but I think that it was in
consideration for me that they chose Colchester
as the wedding venue. It was a thoughtful
gesture that I very much appreciated.
A family occasion. Oh dear – I look glum; but I wasn't!
Chris, Pete’s elder son from his
former marriage, flew back from Taiwan
to be present at the occasion, as did his younger son Nick with his Belgian
girl-friend Romy, from Brussels .
Also present were Pete’s younger brother
Andy, his wife Marilyn and daughter (my granddaughter) Jo, who travelled from Sheffield where she lives and works, my sister-in-law
(Pete’s Aunt) Margaret - all Pete’s immediate family in fact - and Arlene’s
younger sister Jill.
It was a
lovely sunny day and, after the wedding ceremony, Pete and Arlene invited us
all to a splendid celebratory evening meal at Wivenhoe House Hotel in the
grounds of Essex University
Note – both photos are from the collection
of my grandson Nick
Shock, horror – Brussels
demands that Britain
Well
no, nothing remotely like that has happened – but you’d certainly imagine that
it had from the outrage expressed by some politicians and echoed by the EU-hating press. What has happened is that
the European Court of Human Rights, that we helped to establish and which is
quite independent of the EU, has ruled that it is wrong to condemn any criminal
to whole-life imprisonment without offering any chance whatsoever of his or her
ever being offered even a limited degree of
freedom.
What
happens at the moment is that Judges are obliged to give anyone found guilty of
murder, a sentence of imprisonment for life.
However judges realize that murders do not all involve the same degree
of wickedness, nor do all murderers pose an equal risk to the public if they
are, at some time or other, granted a measure of freedom. Therefore, when sentencing a man or a woman
to life imprisonment they customarily add that although they are to suffer a
life-long punishment, after perhaps ten, fifteen or twenty-five years they may
be considered for release on parole. Very rarely, the judge considers the
actions of the convicted criminal to be so heinous, that he or she should
remain imprisoned until death, with no possibility of parole.
It
is members of that last very small group whom the Court of Human Rights has
ruled, should be given a glimmer of hope.
The suggestion, as I understand it, is that all ‘lifers’ should be considered for parole after say
twenty-five years imprisonment. The fact
that they are considered for parole does not, of course, mean that parole will be
granted. I understand that a
prerequisite of this is that prisoners admit their guilt and
show remorse for their crime. That would surely rule out Jeremy Bamber, Essex ’s best-known whole-life convict. Despite the failure of repeated appeals, he
continues to protest his innocence of the murder of five members of the family
into which he had been adopted. He therefore neither admits his guilt nor shows
remorse. If he did manage to convince an appeal court of his innocence he would be
automatically released. Therefore although he is one of those who have brought
this matter to the European Court of Human Rights, he appears to be unaffected
by its ruling.
It
doesn’t seem to me to be unreasonable that all
prisoners should be considered for
parole after twenty-five years. We are all quite different persons from those
that we were a quarter of a century ago.
In that respect criminals are the same as the rest of us. Parole may be refused as well as being
granted. If granted it can be subject to
conditions laid down by the parole board.
I would have thought that prison governors and staff would welcome the
offer of a ray of hope to even the most intransigent prisoner. The possibility
of either a favourable or unfavourable report to the parole board must surely
be an aid to discipline.
Dante
posted the message ‘All hope abandon ye
who enter here’ at the entrance of Hell.
Our prisons are supposed to be places of punishment – but they’re not
supposed to be a hell on earth.
One rule for the rich and powerful,
quite another for the rest of us.
Public
outrage at the golden handshakes given to top BBC officials to expedite their
departure brought to my mind a letter that I had recently received from a blog
reader and regular correspondent about the very different treatment of members
of the senior hierarchy of public institutions who are found wanting, from that
meted out to junior employees.
My
correspondent was a former Chief Officer of a large London Local Authority who
is now Managing Director of his own business.
In his former capacity he was responsible for the dismissal or demotion
of a number of junior staff who had made serious errors of judgement; decisions
that he considered at the time to be fair and just. Recently though there has been a spate of
‘honourable resignations’ of head teachers of educational establishments,
.members of the House of Lords, senior officers of the NHS, Chief Police
Officers, Chief Executives of local authorities and Chief Executive Officers of
Banks, without any proper investigation and revelation of their failings.
He
does not suggest that all those who ‘honourably resign or retire’ are guilty of
gross misconduct but acceptance of their departure without a formal enquiry
means that the full facts are never revealed, and the individuals concerned are
never either exonerated or reprimanded. They are free to exercise their
profession and many have done so with little or no loss of income. ‘Unproven
allegations’ cannot be mentioned for fear of a libel action.
During
the MPs expenses scandal only a very few blatant offenders were
prosecuted. A great many MPs were simply
allowed to pay back the ‘expenses’ that they had falsely claimed. Junior civil servants or local government
officers who had misappropriated public funds or ‘fiddled’ their expenses would
not have been given that option. They
would have been summarily dismissed and probably prosecuted. They would have
lost their pension rights and become unemployable.
My
correspondent says that, ‘unlike most
social problems in this country, this injustice could be promptly and easily
remedied. It would require just one
letter, sent with ministerial support from the head of the civil service to
instruct the governing bodies of Health Authorities, local authorities, police
forces and other public institutions to treat Chief and Senior Officers in
accordance with their existing disciplinary code in the same way as they would
treat junior staff and, if there are serious allegations, they should on no account accept an offer of
resignation or of early retirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment